Realization of lawyer’s stance on cases concerning traffic accidents in civil proceedings

Cover Page

Abstract


The article deals with the question whether realization of position is an independent advocate’s activity type, which can not always develop in strict accordance with the originally chosen tactics and strategy of representation. The author rejects simplicity of cases of road accidents. In some cases of traffic accidents not only insurance companies, but more than two legal entities and individuals, third party can defend proceedings. In some cases at the request of the parties autotechnical expertise, using the results of forensic examinations is appointed by the court. Lawyer has to significantly change the originally selected position in the course of reviewing such cases and in general cases of accident essentially remedial action in response to opponents and (or) of the court. The article presents different approaches to the definition of the stages of work in cases of accidents. It analyzes issues of evidence in cases of accidents. Even if the information confirming the accuracy of the facts relevant to the case, is not enough according to lawyer’s opinion, but it exists, lawyer, in consultation with the client, should appeal to them in the process. Lawyer realizing position on the case should be remember that the evaluation of evidence, which is a logical activity, is ultimately reflected in the findings, conclusions, entailing the adoption of procedural decisions. The conclusion is that different types of cases of an accident have different evidences and even the process of proof. Result of author’s analyzes of judicial practice suggests that the most common cases of road accidents are disputes over compensation for damages under the insurance.

V N Domanov

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

Email: domanov_vn@mail.ru
The Department of the Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Human Rights Activities

Views

Abstract - 749

PDF (Russian) - 121

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2016 Legal Science